Griffith v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Griffith v. City of New York

248 A.D.2d 439, 668 N.Y.S.2d 940, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2290

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 9, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 248 A.D.2d 439 (Griffith v. City of New York) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Griffith v. City of New York, 248 A.D.2d 439, 668 N.Y.S.2d 940, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2290 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for negligence and conversion, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jackson, J.), dated November 19, 1996, which granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint as barred by the Statute of Limitations.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

While the plaintiff’s complaint purportedly sounds in negligence and conversion, it is the essence of the action and not the label given to it that is important for determining time limitations (see, Solnick v Whalen, 49 NY2d 224). The plaintiffs action challenges the defendant’s administrative determination pursuant to Administrative Code of the City of New York § 11-424. Thus, the four-month Statute of Limitations of CPLR 217 (1) applies (see, Kaufman v City of New York, 128 AD2d 592; Solomon v City of New York, 94 AD2d 283, 287). Since the plaintiff did not commence the instant action until approximately two years after the defendant’s administrative agency’s determination, the action is time-barred.

Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Santucci, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for negligence and conversion, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jackson, J.), dated November 19, 1996, which granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint as barred by the Statute of Limitations.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

While the plaintiff’s complaint purportedly sounds in negligence and conversion, it is the essence of the action and not the label given to it that is important for determining time limitations (see, Solnick v Whalen, 49 NY2d 224). The plaintiffs action challenges the defendant’s administrative determination pursuant to Administrative Code of the City of New York § 11-424. Thus, the four-month Statute of Limitations of CPLR 217 (1) applies (see, Kaufman v City of New York, 128 AD2d 592; Solomon v City of New York, 94 AD2d 283, 287). Since the plaintiff did not commence the instant action until approximately two years after the defendant’s administrative agency’s determination, the action is time-barred.

Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Santucci, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 A.D.2d 439, 668 N.Y.S.2d 940, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2290, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/griffith-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack